Introduction While many assume that
the mission of the national post office has remained
static throughout history, this is far from the case. The
institution was founded in the 18 th century as an
inter-city post office to post office pouch service. In
the second half of the 19 th century, it assumed the
functions of a big city “penny post,” as well.
In the early 20 th century, national postal service
reached out to the vast rural areas where most Americans
still lived and worked. Most recently, in 1970, the
national post office was relaunched as a more efficient,
businesslike service. Throughout its 225 years, the core
mission of the Postal Service and its predecessors has
undergone significant changes at pivotal moments. Yet,
the national post office has remained a vital and
valuable institution precisely because of these timely
adaptations.
Today, the Postal Service once more must evolve
alongside the changing postal needs of the country. But
whereas the challenge in the past has largely been to
keep pace with the nation’s expanding need
to exchange goods and information, the challenge before
the institution today is to advance its core modern
purpose—delivering high-quality universal postal
service to the nation—in an era when demand for
traditional postal services may well be contracting.
| Continuing
to keep the country, its economy and its people
connected through the mail will be a challenge in
this modern environment. However, if the Postal
Service has a clear legal framework, the capacity
to innovate, and the charge to make greater use
of private-sector partnerships, then the
institution could well clear the hurdles
currently in its path and rise to a new standard
of excellence. Its success, however, requires a
sharply focused institution with a clearly
defined purpose. |
Meeting Modern-Day Mail
Needs
The Postal
Service should have a focused, clear mission that
reflects the modern-day mail needs of the
country. That mission should be "to provide
high-quality, essential postal services to all
persons and communities by the most
cost-effective and efficient means possible at
affordable and, where appropriate, uniform
rates."
|
The Commission recommends that the
mission of the Postal Service be “to provide
high-quality, essential postal services to all persons
and communities by the most cost-effective and efficient
means possible at affordable and, where appropriate,
uniform rates.” This definition focuses the
organization on its core value—delivering
high-quality universal postal service at affordable
rates; it makes efficiency and cost-effectiveness
explicit obligations the Postal Service owes its
customers; it emphasizes that affordable rates must not
come at the expense of service quality; and it further
opens the door—appropriately—to greater
involvement of the private sector in the delivery of the
nation’s mail.
By modernizing postal laws that have not been
revisited in more than 30 years, by enhancing universal
service through more flexible delivery standards, by
clarifying the postal monopoly and potentially narrowing
it over time, and by advancing the businesslike
perspective and operations of the Postal Service, we may
well change the institution dramatically. Yet,
with a newly focused mission, the Postal Service’s
primary function—ensuring universal
service—will be preserved and advanced.
Source: National Archives |
“As we
look to the past, a very proud past, I think
that…[the] hundreds of thousands of people
in the Post Office Department can look to a
better future…” President Nixon’s
Remarks, August 12, 1970 (signing of the Postal
Reorganization Act). |
After 30 Years, Postal Laws
Must be Modernized
As mentioned above, legislation creating the Postal
Service has not been updated since 1970. At that time,
the Postal Service was not self-supporting. Like other
government agencies, it was dependent on Congressional
appropriations. The institution also was plagued by
complaints about the reliability and quality of its
service as well as the often politicized nature of its
operations. In response, the 1970 Act delineated a broad
mission “to bind the nation together through the
personal, educational, literary, and business
correspondence of the people.” The 1970 Act also
separated the nation’s politics from its postal
service and instructed the Postal Service to operate in a
more businesslike manner: improving customer service,
being more entrepreneurial, and operating without the
benefit of taxpayer subsidies.
The 1970 Act defined the purpose of the Postal Service
as:
• binding the nation together through the
personal, educational, literary, and business
correspondence of the people;
• providing prompt, reliable, and efficient
services to all persons in all communities; charging
fair and reasonable rates and fees; and
• showing no undue or unreasonable preference
to any user.
While these remain appropriate guiding principles for
the institution today, a focused mission of delivering
the mail to everyone in the most cost-effective and
efficient manner possible highlights the fiscal
discipline and strong business orientation the Postal
Service needs today to ensure the future of universal
service at affordable rates. As many corporations have
learned, an important element of success is staying
focused on your core business.
Should the Postal Service be Privatized?
Given how dramatically the postal environment has
changed in the past 30 years, some have suggested that
perhaps the Postal Service can best act like a
business, if it is permitted to become a
business. While privatization has been a reform strategy
adopted by some leading postal systems around the globe,
the Commission believes that such a precipitous step for
the Postal Service would unnecessarily jeopardize
universal service at affordable prices. The Postal
Service handles more than 200 billion pieces of mail per
year. It delivers over 40% of the world’s mail,
across the vast geographic expanse of the United States. [1]
The nation’s mail remains essential to the American
people and economy. It is highly unlikely that the
private sector, acting alone, could provide the universal
mail services we have come to expect from the Postal
Service. All of these factors merit a
“first-do-no-harm” approach.
In the judgment of the Commission, privatization of
the Postal Service would today pose a substantial risk of
doing great harm. Privatization of a commercial entity
the size of the Postal Service could seriously disrupt
the highly successful private delivery service markets.
For the Postal Service itself, privatization could imply
a decade or more of wrenching organizational changes.
Most importantly, while the end result of privatization
could be a dynamic and efficient private postal sector,
the privatization process could undercut the stability
and continuity that are the hallmark of a public service.
Given the essential nature of universal postal service
for the foreseeable future, the Commission believes that
the least risky strategy is a more evolutionary approach.
The Postal Service should be maintained as a public
entity, but refocused and reorganized to enhance its
efficiency and adaptability in the face of an uncertain,
and ultimately more competitive, future.
The
Postal Service: A Self- Sustaining Commercial
Enterprise
The Postal Service should
continue as an independent establishment within
the executive branch with a unique charter to
operate as a self-sustaining commercial
enterprise. However, it should take full
advantage of the flexibility afforded it under
this construct to aggressively adopt best
business practives throughout the organization to
maximize the quality of universal service and
minimize the cost and risk to ratepayers and
taxpayers.
|
That certainly is the feedback
the Commission has received from consumers in its
survey of their perspectives on the Postal
Service. More than two-thirds of respondents
indicate they are generally satisfied with the
service and value they receive from the Postal
Service. A full 73% believe postal operations
should either remain as is or be improved through
only minor changes. They support the notion of a
self-financing institution, but flatly oppose
near-term privatization. Interestingly enough,
the survey results suggest that a majority would
rather pay more for postage than see the nation
go into debt to maintain universal postal service. [2] |
Exhibit 2-1
A full 73% believe postal
operations should either remain as is or be improved
through only minor changes.
Source: Black & Veatch (Hart
Research and American Viewpoint)
consumer survey conducted for the Commission.
These strong customer opinions support
the Commission’s conclusion that the Postal Service
needs to improve the way it does business, but
not fundamentally alter its mission or structure in the
near term.
Exhibit 2-2
A firm majority (67%) oppose privatization
Source: Black &
Veatch (Hart Research and American Viewpoint)
consumer survey conducted for the Commission.
Postal Monopoly Should be a
Bridge to a Competitive Marketplace
While a postal monopoly will likely be
necessary for many years, the Commission strongly
recommends new mechanisms that will permit incremental
steps toward the ultimate desired destination: a
thriving, competitive postal marketplace capable of
delivering stable, high-quality, affordable and universal
postal service. This conclusion is consistent with
regulatory reforms adopted in other sectors of the U.S.
economy over the past quarter century, where
government-sanctioned monopoly markets have been opened
up to private-sector competition. Those examples
demonstrate that rarely is it in the public interest for
a monopoly to be a permanent construct. Rather,
monopolies are most beneficial when they serve as a
bridge—albeit, often a long one—to the rise of
a healthy, competitive, and reliable marketplace.
We see strong evidence that the practical
impact of the postal monopoly is diminishing in the
United States. Today, a vibrant U.S. private-sector
postal industry is extending its reach and service
capabilities. At the same time, new technologies are
shifting transmission of large amounts of national
correspondence from the postal monopoly to competitive
telecommunications carriers. Indeed, even the Postal
Service is facilitating more private-sector
involvement—for example, by offering discounts to
high-volume mailers that do the processing and
transportation of their own mail. In the United States,
the private sector is far more involved in the mail
delivery stream than in most other industrialized
countries.
This report could accelerate these
trends. In doing so, it asks the nation to answer a
fundamental question: Should the country’s mail forever
be delivered by the government? While this report does
not pursue privatization as a near-term goal nor seek to
have the private sector replace the government in
performing vital government functions, it does aim to
pave the way for introduction of best business practices
throughout the Postal Service. As a result of the
aggressive strategies we propose, it is our hope that
Postal Service customers will increasingly reap the
benefits of a more businesslike institution.
Archaic Postal Monopoly Law Needs
Clarity, Modernity
Once the conclusion is reached that the
public interest is best served by the continuation of the
Postal Service monopoly in the near-term, an urgent need
arises to revisit and recast the country’s arcane
postal monopoly law. The lack of a straightforward and
circumscribed definition of the postal monopoly was a
common complaint heard by the Commission. Legislation
governing the postal monopoly has gone largely unchanged
for more than a century. As a result, regulatory
interpretations of the monopoly have grown increasingly
muddled.
| Postal
Monopoly Law Predates Light Bulbs, Let Alone
E-Mail Many
of the provisions of the current postal monopoly
law date back to the postal laws of 17th-Century
England and have remained virtually unchanged,
often offering no point of reference to the
modern world and producing a dense thicket of
vague and contradictory regulations.
[3]
Put another way, the
nation’s postal monopoly law predates not
only the computer, e-mail and the fax machine,
but also the radio, the telephone and the
electric light bulb. America’s postal
monopoly law was crafted at the dawn of the
Industrial Revolution to serve the social and
commercial needs of an America that
overwhelmingly lived on the farm, worked in the
family business, and traveled by stagecoach.
Several years into the nation’s Information
Revolution, it is clear that these archaic laws
should be clarified and modernized.
|
In light of this confusion,
the nation would be best served by a modern,
straightforward definition that reflects the
postal monopoly as the nation knows it and relies
on it today. The Commission feels that this issue
would best be addressed by placing the postal
monopoly’s forward-looking oversight and
scope in the hands of an independent Postal
Regulatory Board (whose structure and
responsibilities are explained in chapter 4). With the
on-line world blurring the meaning of
“correspondence,” the Commission
proposes clarifying that the postal monopoly
applies only to hard-copy communications. The
Commission also strongly recommends that a bright
line be drawn between the postal monopoly and the
competitive mail market. In its Transformation
Plan, the Postal Service itself acknowledges the
absence of a clear border, noting that
“there is no precise line that distinguishes
protected volumes from unprotected volumes.”
|
The basic uncertainty in
the scope of the postal monopoly derives from the way it
is defined. In the nineteenth century, the postal
monopoly was declared to include the carriage of
“letters,” but not other types of postal items. [4]
While this standard may have been clear enough in simpler
times when there were only a few types of mail, it is
extremely difficult to apply to the variety of items
posted today. In some other industrialized countries,
postal reform laws have abandoned efforts to define the
postal monopoly by the content of what is transmitted and
have instead extended the monopoly to all envelopes
falling within certain weight and price limits.
[5]
The Commission recommends a similar approach, defining
the postal monopoly to cover:
Any hard copy communication that
is to be conveyed and delivered to a specific address
in the United States indicated by the sender,
provided its weight is less than 12 ounces and the
delivery price is less than the basic stamp price
times six.
The weight limit in the proposed
definition is 12 ounces. Under this approach, the Postal
Service would have a monopoly over the carriage of all
envelopes weighing less than 12 ounces; that is, private
carriers would not be permitted to carry envelopes
weighing less than 12 ounces unless they charge more than
the price limit described below. While the precise level
of a weight limit is necessarily somewhat arbitrary, the
Commission believes that 12 ounces is a simple and
convenient standard that includes virtually all of what
people ordinarily think of as “letters”
reserved for the Postal Service. Twelve ounces is
slightly less than the weight limit adopted in the
European Union in 1997 (350 grams or 12.5 ounces) but
considerably more than the EU-wide weight limit placed in
effect earlier this year (100 grams or 3.5 ounces). [6] On the other hand, a 12-ounce limit will
allow competition for items now carried by Priority Mail,
mostly very large envelopes and small parcels. The
Commission doubts that most people today think of such
items as “letters” within the postal monopoly.
The price limit in the proposed
definition is six times the price of a First-Class stamp.
The purpose of the price limit is to reserve for the
Postal Service the carriage of letter-sized envelopes by
ordinary postal services while allowing private carriage
by more rapid or value-added services. In 1979, the
Postal Service initiated the practice of using a price
limit on the postal monopoly to allow private carriage of
urgent letters. [7] This concept has
been copied in postal reform legislation around the world
and is now almost invariably expressed as a simple
multiple of the basic stamp price. By linking the price
limit to the First-Class stamp, price protection of the
postal monopoly will be maintained even if stamp prices
increase. The price limit proposed by the Commission is
the same as that proposed in the recent postal
modernization bill developed by the House of
Representatives. It is more protective of the Postal
Service than the price limit adopted in the European
Union (set at five times the stamp price in 1997 and
reduced to three times the stamp price in 2003).
The recast postal monopoly should retain
traditional statutory exceptions for carriage of a letter
enclosed with cargo, a letter carried by its owner, a
letter carried by special messenger, and a letter carried
free of charge. In addition, the statute should continue
the major regulatory exceptions to the postal monopoly
recognized today. These include exceptions for the
carriage of newspapers, checks and other financial
instruments, advertisements included with merchandise,
intra-university mail, and carriage to or from a post
office. Specific details of the rule and the task of
fashioning new exceptions should be left to the
discretion of the Postal Regulatory Board.
Defining the Postal Monopoly in Clear and
Understandable Terms
Astute readers will note
this report’s reference to codifying the
postal monopoly “as the nation knows it
today.” This caveat is necessary because the
reality of the postal monopoly is far from that
envisioned more than a century ago. The
nation’s postal monopoly statute, last
revised substantially in 1872, was originally
crafted to cover only letters. Today, it is
generally believed to cover all First-Class Mail
and Standard Mail (mostly advertising)—in
other words, virtually all letters and documents
of both a personal and business nature.
Over time, exceptions to the monopoly
were created by “suspensions” issued by
the Postal Service, such as intra-university mail
and “urgent” mail (i.e. private express
delivery). [8] While
these suspensions serve the nation’s modern
mail needs, some question whether the Postal
Service has the authority to define and alter the
scope of its own monopoly.
This leads the Commission
to two conclusions: (1) the postal monopoly
should be defined in clear and understandable
terms; and (2) the monopolist (i.e. the Postal
Service) should not regulate the scope of its own
monopoly. Thus, the Commission recommends that
this responsibility should reside with an
independent Postal Regulatory Board (more fully
described in chapter 4).
|
Toward a More Efficient and
Performance-Oriented Monopoly
The Commission readily acknowledges that a monopoly is
often an inherently inefficient device with a natural
propensity for stagnation and mediocrity. By recommending
a wide array of aggressive strategies to improve the
efficiency and business practices of the Postal Service,
this report aims to make the U.S. postal monopoly far
more performance-oriented. To encourage those results,
the Commission recommends several mechanisms that will
impose on the Postal Service the same bottom-line risks
and rewards that motivate private-sector companies and
their employees.
These mechanisms include the adoption of an
incentive-based compensation program that rewards all
employees who contribute to the improved performance of
the Postal Service, from mail carriers and postal clerks
to the most senior executives (discussed in detail in Chapter 6). The second noteworthy
mechanism is rate ceilings (discussed in detail in Chapter 4), which eliminate any
notion that rising costs can simply be funded by rising
rates. Instead, this mechanism caps the growth in
revenues the Postal Service can expect from ratepayers at
a level below inflation. It is our hope that through the
use of these tools, an institution that once could be
lulled by the luxury of monopoly revenues can be
transformed into a more businesslike institution that
aggressively roots out the inefficiencies and excessive
costs that exist throughout the nation’s postal
network.
| The postal monopoly
as it exists today has a second element as well:
Only the Postal Service is permitted to have
access to the nation’s mailboxes. A recent
survey conducted for the Commission is consistent
with a 1997 GAO study that concluded that the
vast majority of adults oppose allowing just
anyone to put mail into their mailboxes.
[9]
However, the Commission notes that the GAO survey
also indicated that the level of opposition
reduces by half when access is limited
to familiar delivery brands.
[10] This mixed
message appears to indicate that the status
quo blanket mailbox monopoly may be
overriding the individual preferences of a
sizeable minority of Postal Service customers. |
The
Mailbox Monopoly: Current Law “Whoever knowingly and
willfully deposits any mailable matter such as
statements of accounts, circulars, sale bills, or
other like matter, on which no postage has been
paid, in any letter box established, approved, or
accepted by the Postal Service for the receipt or
delivery of mail matter on any mail route with
intent to avoid payment of lawful postage
thereon, shall for each such offense be fined
under this title” (18 U.S.C. § 1725).
|
| Therefore, at an
appropriate time in the future, the new Postal
Regulatory Board may wish to take a closer look
at the mailbox monopoly with the aim of easing
its boundaries to permit greater individual
consumer choice. If customers want to give
certain carriers access to their mailbox, the
Commission feels the Postal Regulatory Board
should bless that practice, so long as it occurs
with the customer’s consent. As this
monopoly asset is slowly opened to private
businesses, the Commission also encourages the
Postal Regulatory Board and the Postal Service to
contemplate any revenue opportunities that may be
associated with this step. Without access to
mailboxes, private carriers must deliver to a
customer’s doorstep or office, hindering the
efficiency of their routes. As such, mailbox
access could have significant worth that might
make it in the public interest for the Postal
Service to levy a fee on private carriers that
desire this more efficient means of doing
business. As it reconsiders the postal monopoly
“as the nation knows it,” it is only
appropriate for the Postal Regulatory Board and
the Postal Service to explore all possibilities
for maximizing the public benefit in the process.
Regulating
Access to the MailboxThe Postal Regulatory Board
should be authorized to permit mailbox
access by private carriers in future
regulations, so long as it does not
impair universal service or open
homeowners’ mailboxes against their
will.
|
That point made,
however, the Commission firmly believes
that individual customers should have the
final say over access to their mailbox,
and that such access should be granted
only with their express consent and only
if it in no way jeopardizes universal
service. The solution could be as simple
as authorizing private carriers to
produce and distribute stickers that
their customers can place on their
mailboxes to indicate their consent on a
per carrier basis. But the idea merits
thoughtful exploration in the spirit of
enhancing customer service and consumer
choice. |
Revolutionizing the
Delivery of Universal Postal Service
Deep in the heart of the Grand Canyon lies the
nation’s most remote active mail route.
Nestled a treacherous 8 miles down from the
canyon’s south rim, the 515-member Havasupai
Indian Reservation is inaccessible by land
vehicle or helicopter. Yet five days a week, the
Postal Service makes the grueling three-to-five
hour journey, each voyager carrying on average
200 pounds of mail, food, and more.
[11]
How is this possible? The Postal Service connects
the Havasupai tribe to the world via its last
active mule train. While the vast majority of the
nation is far more accessible than the Havasupai,
the “above and beyond” nature of this
delivery route offers a powerful demonstration of
just how seriously the Postal Service and,
through it, the nation takes its commitment to universal
mail service.
Throughout this report, the point is made that
the Postal Service must be far more aggressive in
enhancing its performance and reducing its costs.
Yet with each recommendation, the same caveat is
made: First and foremost the nation’s
commitment to affordable universal postal service
must be upheld. From the office buildings of
Manhattan to the bush country of Alaska, the near
daily appearance of the Postal Service at
virtually every U.S. home and business remains
essential to American commerce and society. As a
result, the Commission strongly endorses not only
universal service as a principle but as the
guiding mission of the Postal Service, reflected
in the proposed charge “to provide
high-quality essential postal services to all
persons and communities by the most
cost-effective and efficient means
possible.” The Commission further strongly
endorses the basic features of universal
service—affordable rates, frequent delivery,
and convenient community access to retail postal
services.
Where the Commission sees ample room for
improvement, however, is in how
universal service is delivered to the nation. In
this regard, the Commission recommends that the
Postal Service be instructed to:
• focus on core products and
services;
• continue six-day delivery;
• maintain uniform rates…with
review;
• dramatically enhance retail access
to postal services; and
• involve the private sector more in
universal postal service.
Is E-mail a Postal Service?The world has greatly
benefited from the revolution in
correspondence precipitated by the rapid
rise of electronic mail. Nevertheless, a
Postal Service governed by a law written
before the Internet as we know it even
existed has led to some…confusion.
The 1970 Act may be read to provide broad
authority to the Postal Service to be
entrepreneurial in pursuing its
self-financing mandate. However, the
online revolu-tion dramatically blurred
the lines of what constitutes a
“postal service,” producing
some dubious forays.
Many Americans have
no idea that their Postal Service:
—Sells Postal
Service-branded electronic bill
presentment and payment services;
—Explored
offering Internet-based tax services and
money transfers;
—Offers
certified electronic mail and online
greeting cards;
—Contemplated
offering e-mail and other data
transmission services.
These ventures have
produced largely disappointing results.
Also of concern, each of these markets is
served by private companies who do not
have the backing of the U.S. government
and a national postal monopoly. These
efforts also have drained time and
resources that could have been spent
improving traditional postal services.
For this reason, the Commission
recommends focusing the Postal Service on
traditional mail, leaving electronic
products and services to a well-served
and innovative private marketplace.
|
|
Focus on Core Postal Products
and Services
The 1970 Act may be read to provide broad authority
for the Postal Service to pursue an undefined array of
new revenue streams—regardless of whether or not
they are related to traditional postal markets or their
potential market-distorting affects.
The Commission recommends focusing the Postal Service
more exclusively on what the country and its economy rely
on it most to do—provide products and services
directly relating to the delivery of letters, newspapers,
magazines, advertising mail, and parcels on a universal
basis. Under this approach, the institution’s time
and resources can be focused on the quality of its most
vital services and how they can be delivered most
efficiently, rather than diverting limited resources to
new product development and marketing, which may or may
not be within the core mission of the Postal Service.
| Sticking to the
Core Mission The 1970 Act should
be revised to specifically instruct the Postal
Service to offer only products and services
directly related to the delivery of letters,
newspapers, magazines, advertising mail, and
parcels. Other governmental services offered for
the customers’ convenience should be
permitted, so long as the full cost of providing
them is recovered.
|
Achieving this focus will
require clarifying the broad authority granted in
the 1970 Act, which permits the Postal Service to
“provide, establish, change or abolish
special non-postal or similar
services (emphasis added).” To enhance
customer convenience, however, the Postal Service
should be permitted to provide additional
governmental services (such as passports) when in
the public interest and when the Postal Service
is able to recover the full costs of providing
such services. |
The Commission firmly recommends
continuing the Postal Service’s current Monday
through Saturday delivery regimen. While the Postal
Service could save as much as $1.9 billion (less than 3%
of its annual budget) by reducing its delivery schedule
by one day a week, [12]
its value to the nation’s economy
would suffer. Beyond the universal reach of the
nation’s postal network, the regularity of pick-up
and delivery is an essential element of its worth in the
current climate. Elimination of Saturday delivery, for
example, could make the mail less attractive to business
mailers and advertisers who depend upon reaching their
target audience on that day. In addition, given the
volume of mail the nation sends each day, scaling back to
a five-day delivery regimen could create difficult
logistics, mail flow, and storage problems.
| While the Commission firmly
rejects the idea of reducing the frequency of
universal postal delivery in circumstances
substantially similar to today, it would be
imprudent to be arbitrarily inflexible on this
point. Postal Service leaders have indicated that
the rising popularity and sophistication of
e-mail correspondence may ultimately lead to a
reduction in the demand for mail services and may
allow for the relaxation of the six-day delivery requirement. [13]
If that day does arrive, the Commission believes
that the Postal Service should have flexibility
to adapt with the changing postal needs of the
nation. |
Maintain
Six-Day Delivery The Postal
Service should retain its six-day delivery
regimen, with its existing flexibility for
exceptional circumstances. The Postal Regulatory
Board should also have the authority to refine
future delivery frequency requirements as
changing circumstances may warrant.
|
Maintain Uniform
Rates…With Review
| Currently, there are three
categories of mail that are required to have
uniform rates: (1) First-Class Mail weighing less
than 13 ounces; (2) Media Mail (including books,
compact discs, cassettes and videos); and, (3)
library rate mail shipped primarily to or from a
library. The Commission proposes to maintain this
list, but to create a mechanism for its
independent and periodic review. |
Uphold
Uniform Rates The Postal
Regulatory Board (see Chapter
4) should have the authority to
periodically review the list of postal services
for which uniform rates are required by law. The
Board should have the authority to refine the
list as appropriate and necessary to advance this
important aspect of affordable universal service.
|
Dramatically Enhance Retail
Access to Postal Services
| Beyond universal service at
the mailbox, every individual and business has
the right to ready access to retail postal
products and services. The Commission strongly
recommends accelerating efforts underway to
expand access to retail postal services at venues
other than the post office. These
efforts focus on bringing more services to
the customer—at banks, grocery stores, ATM
machines, and other convenient locations across
the country. This recommendation is one example
of the opportunities available to the Postal
Service to control costs and enhance customer
convenience by delivering core postal services in
innova-tive ways. (Specific strategies are
discussed in Chapter 5.) |
Bring
Postal Services to the Consumer The
Postal Service should more aggressively pursue
private-sector retail partnerships that can
dramatically enhance access to the most popular
postal services at more convenient times and
locations for customers in communities across the
country.
|
Involve the Private Sector More
in Universal Postal Service
Where private sector companies can perform aspects of
the nation’s postal service better and at less cost,
the Postal Service best serves the nation by involving
them in the provision of universal postal service. The
Commission recommends that the Postal Service have
maximum flexibility in delivering universal service by
the most cost-effective, quality means available to it,
including outsourcing a particular function to the
private sector.
Who Moved My Mail?
The national postal network
is an interwoven fabric of public and private
endeavors. For more than two centuries, public
and private postal ventures have led a relatively
symbiotic existence, each driving the growth and
development of the other to the benefit of the
nation. From the days of Mark Twain, when
enterprising individuals grabbed satchels of
business correspondence and hopped on riverboats
to conduct the first “express mail” to
today’s state-of-the-art global networks,
private carriers have contributed significantly
to the diversity and sophistication of the
nation’s shipping services. Many don’t
understand the lengths to which the private
sector already is involved in the delivery of
their mail. For example, the Postal Service does
not own airplanes. Instead, it outsources air
transport of the nation’s correspondence. In
addition to its logistical integration, the
public-private postal network also together forms
a powerful economic force.
|
|
The Commission notes that
this evolution already is underway at the Postal
Service, through its many retail postal
partnerships and role as the global pioneer in
worksharing. The Commission supports these
efforts and encourages the Postal Service to
aggressively expand its efforts in this area.
(Proposed strategies are discussed in detail in Chapter 5). |
| |
Seek
Out the Lowest-Cost, Most Effective Provider The
Postal Service should aggressively expand the
number and diversity of its private-sector
partnerships. Where private companies can advance
affordable, universal postal service at an
equivalent or better price and service level than
the Postal Service, the organization should
select the option that least burdens ratepayers.
|
Exhibit 2-3
Conclusion
The Postal Service sorely lacks a clearly
defined mission and bright-line boundaries around the
scope of its postal monopoly. An explicit definition of
the Postal Service’s mission and universal service
obligation—set in the modern context of new
technological and competitive realities—is necessary
to focusing the institution on its essential
forward-looking contributions to the nation.
By clearly defining the Postal
Service’s mission, its universal service duties, and
the scope of the postal monopoly and by freeing the
institution to fulfill its core obligations in innovative
ways, the Postal Service will be able to elevate its
service to the nation. At the same time, a sharp focus on
traditional postal products and services and an
aggressive strategy to pursue more in-depth partnerships
with the private sector will help ensure the Postal
Service’s future viability. So long as this
evolution not only protects, but advances universal
postal service, it will be a positive transformation for
ratepayers and taxpayers alike.
With the establishment of a clear vision
of the modern role and relevance of the Postal Service,
responsibility for its success will rest in the hands of
those who would shepherd this important evolution of a
vital national institution, making it even more important
to establish a governance structure that aligns the
Postal Service’s resources with its forward-looking
duty and purpose.
Chapter 2 Recommendations *
B1. .....Basic
Structure. The Postal Service
should continue to operate as an independent
establishment within the executive branch with a
unique mandate to operate as a self-sustaining
commercial enterprise.
B-2. .....Mission.
The 1970 Act should be amended to clarify that
the mission of the Postal Service is to provide
high-quality, essential postal services to all
persons and commu-nities by the most
cost-effective and efficient means possible at
affordable and, where appropriate, uniform rates.
In doing so, the activities of the Postal Service
should be limited to: 1) accepting, collecting,
sorting, transporting, and delivering letters,
newspapers, magazines, advertising mail, and
parcels; and 2) providing other governmental
services when in the public interest and where
the Postal Service is able to recover the
appropriately allocated costs of providing such
services.
B-3. .....Monopoly.
The Postal Service should maintain its current
mail monopoly, and also retain its sole access to
customer mailboxes. However, the 1970 Act should
be amended to: 1) authorize the Postal Regulatory
Board (see chapter 4) to clarify and periodically
review the scope of the mail monopoly; and 2)
clarify that the Postal Service does not have the
authority to alter the scope of the mail monopoly
or to determine the extent of access to customer
mailboxes.
|
Endnotes
11.
United States Postal Service, Transformation Plan, Apr.
2002, p. i. 
12. Peter D.
Hart Research Associates, Inc., Study #7006, May 2003, p.
4.
13. Campbell
Jr., James I., Testimony Before President’s
Commission on the United States Postal .......Service, Feb. 20, 2003, p.
18.
14. Ibid.,
p. 19.
15.
Transformation Plan, Appendix H, p. 3.
16. European
Union, Bulletin EU 12-1996; European Parliament UK
Office, On-line Posting, Dec 15, ......2000,
; Campbell Jr., James I., Testimony Before
President’s Commission on the United States Postal ......Service, p. 22.
17. 39 CFR
§ 320.6.
18. 39 CFR
Part 320.
19. United
States General Accounting Office, “U.S. Postal
Service: Information About Restrictions on .......Mailbox Access,”
GAO/GGD-97-85, May 1997, p. 16.
10. Ibid.
11. United States Postal Service, Latest
Facts Update, On-line Posting, Mar. 13, 2002,.
12. Cohen, Robert H., Director, Office
of Rates, Analysis and Planning, Postal Rate Commission, .......Testimony Before
President’s Commission on the United States Postal
Service, Feb. 20, 2003, p. 7. .......Mr.
Cohen’s testimony reflects his own views and not
necessarily those of the Postal Rate .......Commission.
13. Potter, John E., Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service, Testimony Before
President’s .......Commission
on the United States Postal Service, May 29, 2003, p. 5.
Forward • Executive
Summary
Chapter
1 • Chapter
2 •
Chapter
3 •
Chapter 4 •
Chapter 6
Conclusion
|
